Quote from: estar;283452Everything you need for most (but not all) of the original AD&D monsters has been released as part of the d20 OGL. This is what OSRIC and the other retro clones use. Stick with that list and you will be ok. For module writing this means no mind flayers, carrion crawlers, beholders, the named artifacts, etc.

These were the critters I was thinking of. However, keep in mind that then you need to include the OGL license, a section 15 and all the copyright notices.

More great info, HinterWelt. I can cetainly get creative with the stat block (and anything else that hints at IP) and I'll be sure to include the OGL stuff. Once I get back from the con, I'll post the module on my site too, if anyone's interested.

Quote from: dndgeek;283463More great info, HinterWelt. I can cetainly get creative with the stat block (and anything else that hints at IP) and I'll be sure to include the OGL stuff. Once I get back from the con, I'll post the module on my site too, if anyone's interested.

It should be noted that if you use the OGL then you CAN copy directly from the source. This means the source must be released using the OGL and that the section 15 does not specifically list the stat blocks as PI. Ester seems to have a better handle on the specific material here (I am just a D20 guy ).

Quote from: HinterWelt;283464It should be noted that if you use the OGL then you CAN copy directly from the source. This means the source must be released using the OGL and that the section 15 does not specifically list the stat blocks as PI. Ester seems to have a better handle on the specific material here (I am just a D20 guy ).

Note that under the OGL there is a distinction between the open material and product identity. If you want to have as much as possible under your copyright then make a layout that clearly sets off the stat blocks for characters, treasure, traps, and creatures. Declare those OGL and the rest of your module product identity. Luckily the stat blocks for AD&D are minimal compared to D20.  Use OSRIC as the list of what you are permitted to use.


If you are still not sure then buy a goodman game 1e module or a expeditous retreat module and look at how they do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

Short version: You can say "This is for Dungeons & Dragons" as long as you don't use their logo or imply that it's official.

Hi!
  Hinter is spot on. The only thing I want to add is:
It doesn't matter if you are charging or not. Lawyers need to promote a few ideas (legally)
1) That they do care about their copyright. Meaning, even if you do not make money or even charge money for your material, if it uses copyrighted materials, you are still vulnerable to suit. And it would not be thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit as the ip holder has to show that it is interested in defending its copyright from all violators.
2) Trademarks need to defended in every case that the holder is aware of. Although this can nominally be avoided with a disclaimer (e.g., no use of trademark "x" is intended as a challenge to trademark holder "y").
  Also, by giving these to people in the industry, even for free, you are setting your material up to be more noticeable by the ip holder.
  Also, IANAL, but I just wanted to be clear that no money has to be transacted in any way in order for there to be an actionable situation. Although, typically, you will receive cease and desist before you get sued. Only after you fail to Cease and Desist, will you have to go to court. Also, I think OGL only applies to 3.5, so it might not be too helpful for AD&D 1e...

Quote from: dindenver;283495And it would not be thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit as the ip holder has to show that it is interested in defending its copyright from all violators

I don't believe that to be the case in the US (& it's certainly not the case in the UK, where I teach copyright law) - you don't lose copyright by not enforcing it. Trademarks, by contrast, can be lost if not enforced against infringing use (use indicating origin).  However "Compatible with the 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons ruleset formerly published by TSR" is a nominative (descriptive) use of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons , not an infringing use.

Quote from: HinterWelt;283461Monster: Troll
HD: 3+1
MV: 12
AC: 2

I don't believe that to be a substantial work such as would attract copyright protection.  By contrast, a 3rd edition D&D monster stat block does look substantial enough to be copyright-protected.  Note however that it is the presentation that is protected under copyright, not the data itself.

S'mon,
  You are probably right.
  What I do know is. It doesn't matter if you are charging money or not in order for it to be an actionable copyright violation.

It should also be remembered that in many jurisdictions some of the rights copyright owners possess relate only to materials being distributed to the public. Where the line between "privately circulated" and "distributed to the public" lies is, of course, a matter of debate. But (and please note I am not a qualified IP lawyer of any kind) I would say that if you are just privately showing a few publishers your work rather than whipping it out in public for all to see you should be fine, especially when you consider that none of the publishers are likely to have any interest in reporting you to Wizards, and if you're not putting the module on the open market Wizards may choose not to give a fuck.

Of course, if you want to actually publish the thing then that pretty much definitely counts as making it available to the public, so you will need to be pretty careful about copyright at that point. If you have convinced a publisher to put out your work, they can probably help you with this.

Of course, if you show some understanding of the requirements of copyright at this stage, it will make it more likely a publisher will pick you up in the first place.

So, my advice would be to look at how Goodman and OSRIC and others pull this off, listen to the advice on this thread, and err on the side of caution. You are not likely to get sued so long as you don't put this stuff on the open market. But it never hurts to look professional when you're asking publishers to take the financial risk of publishing your work.

Quote from: S'mon;283581I don't believe that to be a substantial work such as would attract copyright protection.  By contrast, a 3rd edition D&D monster stat block does look substantial enough to be copyright-protected.  Note however that it is the presentation that is protected under copyright, not the data itself.

And this is what I was trying to get across. It is more about what the judge would think then some hard and fast rule. My lawyer always advises me to try and avoid such issues. I was merely trying to illustrate the issue of trade dress.

Quote from: S'mon;283581I don't believe that to be a substantial work such as would attract copyright protection.  By contrast, a 3rd edition D&D monster stat block does look substantial enough to be copyright-protected.  Note however that it is the presentation that is protected under copyright, not the data itself.

S'mon is probably right about a single stat block.  But it's important to note that similarities in terms of presentation can be cumulative.  That's a major risk to anyone not using the OGL.

On the other hand, as a practical matter, AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE TRADEMARKS (use the disclaimer about "not affiliated with...etc" the chance for being tagged with anything beyond a cease and desist (which is no problem if you don't plan on distributing it again) is vanishingly small.  Lawsuits cost WotC money, so they wouldn't likely initiate one over a small circulation that wouldn't be repeated.

There's no guarantee of that, but there are many more people out there that they'd go after before you, if they were going to get draconian.  Right now, WotC is following a pretty loose enforcement policy over 0e/1e.  That may change, and they're not as lax as they look, but again, if it's a one-time distribution the PRACTICAL likelihood of enforcement against you for violating copyright by cumulative similarities is very small.

If you plan on longer term distribution, using the OGL through OSRIC is the safest bet - and those with enough legal savvy to evaluate their documents for the risk of cumulative similarity could even rely solely on the fact that mechanics aren't copyrightable, either using the OGL without OSRIC or going completely commando and asserting compatibility without the OGL disclosure.  I wouldn't advise that for ANYONE who's a non-lawyer.  It's one thing for Kenzer to do it, it's another thing entirely to do it without understanding the risks.  Kenzer's a lawyer.

Quote from: dindenver;283495...I think OGL only applies to 3.5, so it might not be too helpful for AD&D 1e...

Here's my understanding:

The OGL is a license; it isn't tied to 3.5.  The 3.5 SRD uses the OGL, and declares the information as open content under the terms of OGL.  (Similarly, the 3.0 SRD used the OGL and declared its content as open.)  Per the OGL (emphases added):

Quote4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

Quote...(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content....

Quote...(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;...

Thus, you can take terms, text, descriptions, etc. that are released as open content and edit, format, modify, add, extend, abridge, recast, transform, and adapt them, provided you abide by the whole of the license (such as respecting Product Identity, trademarks, etc.).  So you could take the SRD description and stats of a goblin, for example, and modify and re-present them in a manner that's compatible with 1e.  An original presentation coupled with the the OGL's permission to use and modify the open content terms and text of the SRD makes this possible.  (Also important is the fact that game rules aren't subject to copyright -- only the presentation of the rules is subject to copyright.)

Quote from: Mythmere;283640Kenzer's a lawyer.

And isn't he an intellectual property lawyer, at that?

Thanks to everyone posting in this thread; I really appreciate your opinions. I have a better handle on the semantics of the issue now, I think, though I believe the module was okay to begin with (as much of what has been said I sort of assumed, perhaps subconciously). The module has changed, though, as I've added a few elements to it to make it a true Gygax tribute module. I'm giddy over the progress so far, but I have some new mapping to do, so I gotta run...

Oh, but please keep the discussion going, if anyone else has more to impart!